2016 35mm cron, 28mm cron and 28mm elemarit optically better?

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

so is there a bigger improvement over their predecessors optically for the 2016 35mm, 28mm 2.8, and 28mm cron?

 

or are we only talking corners wide open?
 

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Kwesi]

From the evidence slowly coming in, both new 28s perform much better in the corners than the previous  28 ASPH lenses. 

It appears the new 35/2 ASPH has smoother bokeh from 2.8 through 5.6 than the previous 35/2 ASPH. 

Leicarumors has a video comparison up today. 

[NB23]

Frankly, if there is a difference and Leica hasn't announced these lenses as being improved, that means that it's simply up to sample variation.

 

Do you own 2 summicrons? Yes? There will be a variation. No? Well, you can't possibly expect all summicrons to be the very same.

 

Besides, I will believe the leicarumors' tests only (and only if!!) three lenses of each make have been tested again themselves and against each other.

 

For example three old summicron 28 tested against themselves and then tested against three new Summicrons. Anything else is pure bullshet.

[Kwesi]

Frankly, if there is a difference and Leica hasn't announced these lenses as being improved, that means that it's simply up to sample variation.

 

Do you own 2 summicrons? Yes? There will be a variation. No? Well, you can't possibly expect all summicrons to be the very same.

 

Besides, I will believe the leicarumors' tests only (and only if!!) three lenses of each make have been tested again themselves and against each other.

 

For example three old summicron 28 tested against themselves and then tested against three new Summicrons. Anything else is pure bullshet.

 

Step 1: read the O P's question

Step 2: scratch your head and ponder wether you have something worthwhile to contribute.

 

This is the best way for you to avoid a condescending response, although given your prior performance I doubt any of thi will sink in.

[NB23]

Step 1: read the O P's question

Step 2: scratch your head and ponder wether you have something worthwhile to contribute.

 

This is the best way for you to avoid a condescending response, although given your prior performance I doubt any of thi will sink in.

My contribution was worthwhile. Maybe you are too busy concentrating on being irritated? Some people are like that and I'm sad for them.

 

How many more blanket statements about lens' performance does the internet need? Lens tests should really involve at least three lenses of the same make in order to give minimally plausible results.

I once had three 28 summicrons (among other triplicate lenses). As it's always the case, all three tested differently: One had super sharp edges, the other a supersharp center and the third had a very interesting field curvature.

What does this tell you?

 

And I answered the op correctly: If Leica didn't brag about better performance, it's probably because there is no better performance.

[lct]

As far as the 28/2 is concerned there seems to be a neat difference in corner rendition where v2 would be sinificantly sharper than v1 according to Sean Reid. I have no personal experience with this lens though. The one i've ordered has been rejected by my dealer for unclear reasons. I suspect focus shift but i may be wrong. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[...] If Leica didn't brag about better performance, it's probably because there is no better performance.

 

Or because you did not read what Leica said.

 

28/2 asph v2: « Improvements to the optical design in this new generation have made it possible to achieve even better imaging performance across the entire image field. The significant reduction of image field curvature guarantees better resolution of details from corner to corner of every picture. »

 

28/2.8 asph v2: « In comparison with the earlier model, the new generation lens offers significantly reduced image field curvature, which brings considerably improved imaging performance with high resolution and extremely brilliant resolution of details. »

 

Source: http://en.leica-camera.com/content/download/131348/1681723/version/1/file/Press%20information_New%20generation%20M%20Lenses.pdf

[Hayek]

Partial mitigation of the curvature of field. That's the sum of it. Big whoop.

[lct]

If it may provide better performance in the corners i am definitely interested. YMMV.

[IWC Doppel]

My contribution was worthwhile. Maybe you are too busy concentrating on being irritated? Some people are like that and I'm sad for them.

 

How many more blanket statements about lens' performance does the internet need? Lens tests should really involve at least three lenses of the same make in order to give minimally plausible results.

I once had three 28 summicrons (among other triplicate lenses). As it's always the case, all three tested differently: One had super sharp edges, the other a supersharp center and the third had a very interesting field curvature.

What does this tell you?

 

And I answered the op correctly: If Leica didn't brag about better performance, it's probably because there is no better performance.

 

I have had two copies of the same lens on several occasions and not seen any difference, but lots of difference between the 35mm Summicron MkIV and the later ASPH. not sure why your 28 Summicrons showed differences, this is Leica not Sony

[lct]

Reminds me of Tim Ashley's "Boricron". His 28/2 copy showed smeared corners i've never got with mine. Serious reviewers should disclose serial numbers as they used to do in the past. Only way to make sure that their copy doesn't come from the last century. 

[semi-ambivalent]

Reminds me of Tim Ashley's "Boricron". His 28/2 copy showed smeared corners i've never got with mine. Serious reviewers should disclose serial numbers as they used to do in the past. Only way to make sure that their copy doesn't come from the last century. 

Absolutely. In fact, with (continuing, I believe) increasing pixel counts soon enough no lens will be free of some kind of "fault". Reviewers will have to critically examine at least three samples of each lens instead of just whooping that they're the first to have one. It will drive a lot of them off the net.

 

s-a

[Hayek]

Absolutely. In fact, with (continuing, I believe) increasing pixel counts soon enough no lens will be free of some kind of "fault". Reviewers will have to critically examine at least three samples of each lens instead of just whooping that they're the first to have one. It will drive a lot of them off the net.

 

s-a

 

True, if Leica chases the pixel unicorn to no particular end.

Some of the QC sample variation and design flaws (think the flare issue in the earliest 50 APOs) one still sees in Leica shouldn't be there to the extent that they are. Acknowledging the challenges inherent in tiny M lenses, computer design and better manufacturing processes are now available to everyone, so the gap that divided a Leica from, say, a Sigma, Zeiss or Voigtlander has all but evaporated. A Sigma ART 50/1.4 at $900 and a Leica 50 Summilux at $4000 aren't all that far apart, definitely not 4-fold as the price would imply. Revisions of bread & butter 28 or 35 Summicrons ought to be more profound. For one, focus shift in digital should no longer be acceptable. Period.

 

The 50 Summicron, is now in its 37th year of production. Really???

 

If there's one thing that should have sent chills down the spines of Wetzlar, it is the ZM 1,4/35. Looking at these 3 revisions, not certain that it has.

[semi-ambivalent]

True, if Leica chases the pixel unicorn to no particular end.

Some of the QC sample variation and design flaws (think the flare issue in the earliest 50 APOs) one still sees in Leica shouldn't be there to the extent that they are. Acknowledging the challenges inherent in tiny M lenses, computer design and better manufacturing processes are now available to everyone, so the gap that divided a Leica from, say, a Sigma, Zeiss or Voigtlander has all but evaporated. A Sigma ART 50/1.4 at $900 and a Leica 50 Summilux at $4000 aren't all that far apart, definitely not 4-fold as the price would imply. Revisions of bread & butter 28 or 35 Summicrons ought to be more profound. For one, focus shift in digital should no longer be acceptable. Period.

 

The 50 Summicron, is now in its 37th year of production. Really???

 

If there's one thing that should have sent chills down the spines of Wetzlar, it is the ZM 1,4/35. Looking at these 3 revisions, not certain that it has.

Leica would be wise not to get into the pixel race but they, like others, are hostage to what their customers think they need to have. More pixels is, well, more.

 

I agree about QC, having had to send my 21 SEM to New Jersey to tighten the optical cell when it was only a few months in my hands. Inexcusable for a company that advertises the legacy it has/does. I look at the problems of the 50 APO to be a direct result of Leica trying to cram the sort of technology it needs to into a volume it feels it needs to. I admire their moxie and remember, the problem was solved, yes? (I know, it was after release.)

 

Price is also used to support customer perception and as a user filter. It supports workers who are a "bit" higher paid than your typical factory worker in Asia, and it provides higher margins for a company with a small product portfolio. (Small compared to somebody like Nikon, who is small compared to somebody like Canon.) But yes their prices could be lower. I've swallowed the Wetzler Kool-Aid but I still have no lenses faster than f/2 and although I'd really like a 35mm Summilux FLE I can't bring myself to pull the trigger because I'd probably have to sell my 35 Summicron ASPH and that's just too sweet.

 

I have a 50 Summicron V4. I can't see ever replacing it with anything else. It's age is a reflection of just how good it was in 1979, which lessens my perception of how it might be lagging now. And it's sooo small.

 

You're probably right about the Zeiss factor. I don't care about the technical performance because I don't shoot digital but the size is important since it offers its performance at a size that doesn't put off somebody already numbed by the ridiculous sizes of DSLR optics. Those people might not see any need to pay the premium for something as small as what Leica tries to achieve, especially if there is not performance parity. (There's those pixels again.)

 

 

Thanks much,

s-a

[edwardkaraa]

To answer the OP question, at least in what concerns the 28s, Sean Reid has made some very curious discoveries in his most recent tests, so I would strongly recommend for anyone considering any of them to read the articles before committing to one or the other.

[otho]

28mm cron new and old tested on M240, SL & A7II:

http://leicarumors.com/2016/05/28/the-old-and-new-leica-28mm-summicron-asph-lenses-tested-on-leica-m-240-sl-and-sony-a7-ii-cameras.aspx/

[lct]

So focus shift or no focus shift on the new 28/2?